Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

1…100101103105106…416

Comments

  • #3062
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,599 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    So you're saying Leo broke the law!
    Thats a pretty serious judgement right there Smurge.
    And then end with a banana Republic remark.

    If it 'was wrong' that he shared a document, then it was wrong because it is against the rules/legislation, therefore illegal.


  • #3063
    ChikiChiki
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,949 ✭✭✭ChikiChiki


    TheSheriff wrote: »
    Agree with you here, the messages are really telling, healthcare is all about €, yet these people are all over our TVs feigning compassion.

    I really hope his time as the media's go to medic is over.

    Aye, clearly he is all about the money and access to power.

    Direct Provision is another one that really concerns me. Huge amounts of taxpayer expenditure siphoned towards these centre with no coherant plan for the poor occupants.

    I'm wondering are there some skeletons in this area.


  • #3064
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,805 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    If it 'was wrong' that he shared a document, then it was wrong because it is against the rules/legislation, therefore illegal.

    A foul in a football match is against the rules and regulations, but not illegal statute wise.
    Big statement to to say someone broke the law as you mean it.


  • #3065
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,599 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    A foul in a football match is against the rules and regulations, but not illegal statute wise.
    Big statement to to say someone broke the law as you mean it.

    It's 'wrong' because he gave a documentt marked Confidential to a vested interest.
    It is wrong because he should not have done that.

    Legislation governs what he should and should not do. He contravened.

    If he didn't then it wasn't wrong.


  • #3066
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    A foul in a football match is against the rules and regulations, but not illegal statute wise.
    Big statement to to say someone broke the law as you mean it.

    Ah yeah, my five aside on a Friday night rules were drawn up by an legislative assembly.


  • Advertisement
  • #3067
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,805 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It's 'wrong' because he gave a documentt marked Confidential to a vested interest.
    It is wrong because he should not have done that.

    Legislation governs what he should and should not do. He contravened.

    If he didn't then it wasn't wrong.

    He admitted it was wrong and not best practice, and imo that could and maybe should have damned him on it's own, it has many others.
    But that's still a step from saying or proclaiming it was illegal.


  • #3068
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,599 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    He admitted it was wrong and not best practice, and imo that could and maybe should have damned him on it's own, it has many others.
    But that's still a step from saying or proclaiming it was illegal.

    :) If it was 'wrong' it cannot be anything other than a contravention of very clear legislation, they even write it on the document.

    If he didn't contravene the legislation then it WASN'T wrong.


  • #3069
    smurgen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    He admitted it was wrong and not best practice, and imo that could and maybe should have damned him on it's own, it has many others.
    But that's still a step from saying or proclaiming it was illegal.

    It was illegal. Was for the benefit of his friend. Answer me this. If the details were public why didn't he whatsapp a link to the public info? Why would the head of a government personally send a document marked confidential not for circulation to someone?


  • #3070
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,805 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    :) If it was 'wrong' it cannot be anything other than a contravention of very clear legislation, they even write it on the document.

    If he didn't contravene the legislation then it WASN'T wrong.

    That's a matter for higher than me or thee to decide though, and it doesn't look like anyone in the political arena is stepping up and pushing for that either.
    Guaranteed if it happened it'd be defended.


  • #3071
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,805 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    smurgen wrote: »
    It was illegal. Was for the benefit of his friend. Answer me this. If the details were public why didn't he whatsapp a link to the public info? Why would the head of a government personally send a document marked confidential not for circulation to someone?

    An envelope marked private and confidential is not a legal document. I get them all the time.


  • Advertisement
  • #3072
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,599 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    That's a matter for higher than me or thee to decide though, and it doesn't look like anyone in the political arena is stepping up and pushing for that either.
    Guaranteed if it happened it'd be defended.

    On what grounds? He admitted it was 'wrong. The Taoiseach has said it was wrong.

    If there was no breach, quite simply, it wasn't wrong.


  • #3073
    smurgen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    An envelope marked private and confidential is not a legal document. I get them all the time.

    It was a contract.not an envelope. And a contract is a legal document. Varadkar said himself it was a contract.


  • #3074
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,805 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    On what grounds? He admitted it was 'wrong. The Taoiseach has said it was wrong.

    If there was no breach, quite simply, it wasn't wrong.

    Wrong Francie isn't always illegal or there'd a lot of us in court fairly regularly.


  • #3075
    smurgen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    Wrong Francie isn't always illegal or there'd a lot of us in court fairly regularly.

    Back to the original defense. If the details were public at the time why didn't he send his friend a link to the public available information?


  • #3076
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    smurgen wrote: »
    Back to the original defense. If the details were public at the time why didn't he send his friend a link to the public available information?

    But the document was shown to hundreds of people ,

    Here were told the imo this and imo that ,why would an organisation who apparently only represent 20% of gp's be the only ones being talked to .

    Seems odd
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #3077
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,599 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    Wrong Francie isn't always illegal or there'd a lot of us in court fairly regularly.

    Maybe you should if you too have shared Confidential documents.

    That's nothing to do with this case in which Varadkar and his Taoiseach have admitted that what was done was 'wrong'.

    If it was wrong, it was wrong because it was a breach of the legislation. Because you might have done it too does not excuse in this case.


  • #3078
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,599 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Gatling wrote: »
    But the document was shown to hundreds of people ,

    Here were told the imo this and imo that ,why would an organisation who apparently only represent 20% of gp's be the only ones being talked to .

    Seems odd

    Immaterial in fairness. The Framework was that the NDGP were not involved in the contract negotiations.


  • #3079
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,805 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    smurgen wrote: »
    It was a contract.not an envelope. And a contract is a legal document. Varadkar said himself it was a contract.

    I get them all the time Smurge, contracts, envelopes, marked clearly as being so, I help draw them up even sometimes.
    And the fact that private and confidential is marked as such is not a claim of legal status and doesn't affect the statutory rights of the individual who shares or receives it.
    The legislation itself that governs whether the law is breached or not is the only legal aid as to whether the law has been breached, not correspondence marked private and confidential.


  • #3080
    smurgen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Gatling wrote: »
    But the document was shown to hundreds of people ,

    Here were told the imo this and imo that ,why would an organisation who apparently only represent 20% of gp's be the only ones being talked to .

    Seems odd

    If that's the case why didn't the O'TUATHAIL go to one of the hundreds of people? Why go to the head of the country at the time?


  • #3081
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,246 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    I get them all the time Smurge, contracts, envelopes, marked clearly as being so, I help draw them up even sometimes.
    And the fact that private and confidential is marked as such is not a claim of legal status and doesn't affect the statutory rights of the individual who shares or receives it.
    The legislation itself that governs whether the law is breached or not is the only legal aid as to whether the law has been breached, not correspondence marked private and confidential.

    If this was the case,why was varadkar going to such efforts to say he was free to distribute it under the offial secrets act??

    (Such advise is disputed btw)

    Seems to me,your comparing apples and oranges


  • Advertisement
  • #3082
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,681 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    smurgen wrote: »
    So if you apologise for breaking the laws it's fine. Some message for a head of government to send out we're in serious trouble as a country. Total banana republic.

    https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1324065476562083841?s=19

    Particularly since LV said it would be a very serious issue if a civil servant had done it.


  • #3083
    Nobotty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Nobotty


    smurgen wrote: »
    It was illegal. Was for the benefit of his friend. Answer me this. If the details were public why didn't he whatsapp a link to the public info? Why would the head of a government personally send a document marked confidential not for circulation to someone?

    You can't actually say it was illegal
    Innocent of that at least until prosecuted and convicted and to be honest chances of that are zero craic... IMO (see what I did there :D)
    If you say its illegal without due process saying it was,this site and you could be sued


  • #3084
    Nobotty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Nobotty


    smurgen wrote: »
    If that's the case why didn't the O'TUATHAIL go to one of the hundreds of people? Why go to the head of the country at the time?

    Because he's a tool


  • #3085
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,805 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    If this was the case,why was varadkar going to such efforts to say he was free to distribute it under the offial secrets act??

    (Such advise is disputed btw)

    Seems to me,your comparing apples and oranges

    Because the details were already in the public domain, it wasn't a secret. But his, sharing of the contract, the written copy of it, shouldn't have been sent to a friend or rival organisation before even the IMO received their official copy.


  • #3086
    smurgen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    Because the details were already in the public domain, it wasn't a secret. But his, sharing of the contract, the written copy of it, shouldn't have been sent to a friend or rival organisation before even the IMO received their official copy.

    Why didn't he direct him to info in public domain? Why wouldn't O'Tuathail seek info available from the public domain? I want to know the weather tomorrow morning but I think I'll ask Google instead of asking Michael D to contact Met Eireann for me.


  • #3087
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,246 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Nobotty wrote: »
    You can't actually say it was illegal
    Innocent of that at least until prosecuted and convicted and to be honest chances of that are zero craic... IMO (see what I did there :D)
    If you say its illegal without due process saying it was,this site and you could be sued

    If you were to say quote the village magazine and their legal advise saying it was illegal,who gets sued then


    Varadkar clearly been leaking all sorts,hes not gonna sue anyone,same as gerry adams isnt going to sue anyone for saying he was in the ira,as civil cases allow all sorts of irrelevant info be aired publically and whatever shred of a reputation he has left would be wiped out


  • #3088
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,246 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    Because the details were already in the public domain, it wasn't a secret. But his, sharing of the contract, the written copy of it, shouldn't have been sent to a friend or rival organisation before even the IMO received their official copy.

    This contract was not published for one month until after it was leaked??


    This 3rd party seen this document before the dail,quite how people parrot the line it was in public domain,when its wasnt is beyond me


  • #3089
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,805 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    This contract was not published for one month until after it was leaked??


    This 3rd party seen this document before the dail,quite how people parrot the line it was in public domain,when its wasnt is beyond me

    But that's the case and the defence too.
    But as I said, the fact that the document had private and confidential or the envelope that yous all have your eyes on as evidence, is worthless in legal terms.


  • #3090
    smurgen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    But that's the case and the defence too.
    But as I said, the fact that the document had private and confidential or the envelope that yous all have your eyes on as evidence, is worthless in legal terms.

    But is was a draft contract. So stating where negotiations were going. If it wasn't confidential why couldn't O'Tuathail himself order one?


  • Advertisement
  • #3091
    Bullocks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,893 ✭✭✭Bullocks


    I reckon this story is dying on its feet , the Village didn't come out with anything new despite their promises of more to follow and the US elections are keeping the newspapers full without looking for any more news . Could be a lucky time for Leo for this to air


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement